The ANSWER Einstein looked for Issued: July 10th 2018.

ANSWER in htm: - *http://amperefitz.com/answer.htm*

Also ANSWER in Word: - *http://amperefitz.com/answer.doc*

And ANSWER in Adobe pdf: - *http://amperefitz.com/answer.pdf*

*c.squared.html 11-25-2017**c.squared.pdf 11-25-2017* (Adobe)*c.squared.doc 11-25-2017* (Word)

Speed of Gravity is 9x10^{16} meters per second.

Those large numbers, which others have mentioned below are, as Tony Bermanseder stated, phase velocity guesses such as the in-out wave, scalar wave resonances of *Dr. Milo Wolff*

The speed of gravity is NOT a phase velocity.

The speed of gravity is 9x10^{16} meters per second. This is much lower than a phase velocity and it is NOT a guess.

A velocity of 9x10^{16} meters per second is an almost instantaneous velocity that is well within the parameters of what Yale University, many other universities and *Van Flandern* are telling you.

A velocity of 9x10^{16} meters per second is not attainable here, nor does it exist here, in our reference frame because it is __above__ the speed of light.

And a caveat from Wheeler and Feynman that you will NEVER be able to measure this velocity directly in our reference frame here because it is in a different **(quark)** dimension from ours here.

But even though you cannot measure it directly here you can mathematically derive it providing you do NOT violate the parameters of the math you are using.

Whoops: a November 30th 2017 correction to this is needed. Click this link: *c.squared.html*

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Hossein Javadi" <javadi_hossein@h...> wrote:

> Dear Carl

>

> Greetings;

> Thank you for your reply.

> < I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on the details of what you wrote, concluding V = ~~~10^28meters/sec. nor what Tony B. posted concluding a speed of V = ~~~10^56meters/sec.>

>

> These numbers for speed of gravity are very large, how we can shows what correct is?

> I used Plank's time and radius of atom for that, and DEar Tony have used antherway.

> However, all these show the speed of gravity is very large of Relativity shows.

>

> Sincerely

> Hossein Javadi

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: TONY BERMANSEDER

> To: 4DWorldx@yahoogroups.com ; InfoPhysics@yahoogroups.com ; npa_dissidents@yahoogroups.com ; kiarashniknejad@yahoogroups.com ; tapten@yahoogroups.com ; theoretical_physics@yahoogroups.com ; TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com ; time-space2@yahoogroups.com

> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 8:28 AM

> Subject: [Theoretical_Physics] Hossein Javadi's CPH theory and the speed of gravity

>

>

> Dear Tony Bermanseder

>

> Greetings

> Thank you for your reply.

> I do not claim my calculation is correct.

> But I clain the speed of graviton is greater than c.

> It ishow a method only, and maybe Plank's time is not a good chosen.

> Also, I will not say 4.8x10^56 m/s it is incorrect, because no one exprimented it.

> All of these are guess, only.

>

> Sincerely

> Hossein Javadi

>

> Dear Hossein!

>

> Thank you for your reply.

> But you are missing the point here.

> I am not in any way critisizing your CPH theory, many parts of it show good potential.

> Where you are mistaken is in some elementary propositions as to how CPH can represent reality.

>

> You calculate the speed of gravity (using the ElectronRadius), as of the order of 10^-15m/5x10^-44s ~2x10^28 m/s or ~10^20c.

>

> This calculation is qualitatively feasible, but internally INCONSISTENT, because of the definitions of the Planck-Scale.

>

> Now using the de Broglie phase-inflation scenario, as a modification of the primary proposal of Alan Guth, is INTERNALLY CONSISTENT in describing the temperature tunnelling of the Higgs scalar temperature field from a higher potentialas given by the superbranes to a lower potential as given by the Weyl-Geodesic and the Penrose Weyl-Nullification hypothesis.

>

> So you are not in any academic position to equate the CPH-proposal to the de Broglie inflation hypothesis.

> True, both are not experimentally verified to the satisfaction of all, but the scientific data base obtained by WMAP, BOOMERANG and COBE are all indicative and supportive of the flatness proposals of the modified Guth inflation scenario and associated parameters.

>

> So 'my' definition for the de Broglie phase-speed rests on solid experimentally verified ground conceptually; a phase speed of the order indicated is not in dispute and relates to particular boundary conditions for the 'false vacuum' causative for the quantum tunneling.

>

> A number of models, such as the ekpyrotic universe of Turok and Steinhardt; the Loop-Quantum-Gravity of Smolin and the Holographic model of Susskind, all are attempting to find the DETAILS for this inflationary mechanism.

> As this mechanism is elementary for the scalar Higgs Temperature Field; any potential and proposed theory engaging this Higgs Field, must necessarily involve the appropriate boundary parameters and initial conditions of the same.

>

> This your CPH theory attempts to do.

>

> I have simply pointed out to you, that your formalism requires a clear definition for those beforesaid boundary conditions to have any hope of succeeding to describe physical reality as it is measured and observed.

>

> As indicated to you before; the CPH quanta are truly subquanta from the subtimespace realm.

> So you should leave the 'vacuum' behind and study about the substratum for the CPH.

> This CPH substratum is one defined in colourcharge or magnetocharge; also known as the ASYMPTOTIC CONFINEMENT, which individuated quark wavequanta experience and so subject to the superforce, unifying the so called four fundamental force interactions.

>

> So CPH theory must come to terms with what those colourcharges, as derivatives from the magnetic monopole as superstring class IIB really are, before any progress can be made.

> This concept is beautifully illustrated on your CPH homepage.

> It is a loss for science, that you personally seem to be unable or unwilling to find the true cosmic foundation of the CPH in colourcharges.

>

> Tony B.

>

>

>

> What I have commended you on, was, that the ratio of the de Broglie phasespeed to c^2 would actually approximate your 'internally inconsistent' calculation in 4.8x10^56m/s/c^2 ~5.4x10^39

> ;.

>

> Love from the DragonHeart!

>

> As a mathematical physicist, I also study ancient scrolls and the signature can be evaluated on a number of levels; from childishly naive to profoundly esoteric---Tony Whynot, Unicorn of SophiaGnosis !

>

> ARMAGEDDON=DRAGONMADE=ANDROMEDAG=MARRY7=GODNAMEDRA=82 =666+1=1+2+3+...34+35+36+1=1+2.2+3.3+5.5+7.7+11.11+13.13+17.17

>

> http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

>

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Hossein Javadi"

<javadi_hossein@h...> wrote:

> Dear Zeus

>

> Greetings;

> Thank you for your reply.

> I agree with about we cannot meassure the speed of gravity directly.

> But let me know how you caculated 9^10x16 m/s?

>

> Sincerely

> Hossein Javadi

Sure,

First read about the (click this link) *importance of SCALAR WAVES*

If you believe in Mach's principle then you must see that inertia is

a VECTOR type of PARTNER to PARTNER spin-binding with the

surroundings.

So inertial mass (resistance to movement) is a VECTOR binding

operation between couples and has NOTHING to do with the SCALAR

frequency of the entity.

While inertial mass is derived via spin binding it does NOT come from electron to electron spin-binding because their spins only cause magnetic attraction and repulsion and sigma

and pi bonding in chemical bonding.

Also electrons do not have sufficient mass.

Quarks DO. They spin.

And they have more energy as well.

More energy means a higher frequency doesn't it?

How much of a higher frequency?

E=MC^{2} tells you exactly if you understand Dr. Milo Wolff's scalar

wave resonances.

The frequency of the scalar wave resonance of the quark has to be the

square of the scalar wave resonance of the electron (Both see each other

as harmonic frequencies).

Scalar wave resonances determine what we see as size and time.

Vector wave (spin) resonances act only between two entities and they

determine space and force just as in general relativity where there is no

math for force, only more space creation. So space creation is force

like in GR.

The spacetime dimension that you and I live in is generated by the

electron.

The electron is a lower scalar HARMONIC of the quark being the SQUARE

of the quark wavelength or the square root of the quark's scalar wave

frequency.

SCALAR frequencies determine time and therefore SPEED.

Vector spin/orbital frequencies determine space and mass with their VECTOR spin

bindings between two partners. Similar to light and heat, a multitude

of these VECTOR quantum bindings, however, will end up as a scalar

resonance.

Since the scalar frequency of the quark is the square of the scalar

frequency of the electron -- and we are talking about TIME and SPEED,

simply square 300, 000, 000 to get 9x10^{16} meters per second.

CAVEAT

This speed is only in the quark dimension -- not the electron's or

our dimension, so according to Wheeler and Feynman we will never be

able to directly measure such a speed in our spacetime realm. BUT we

nevertheless can ascertain it via our math.

(z)

Fitz

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: zeusrdx@y...>

> To: <TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com>

> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 7:30 AM

> Subject: [TheoryOfEverything] Re: [Theoretical_Physics] Hossein

Javadi's CPH

> theory and the speed of gravity

To read **more** click: *http://www.rbduncan.com/schrod.htm*

For MORE about all this get a copy of "

OR

OR -- better yet

Over 4 Decades of Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers & Thoughts http://www.amperefitz.com/4.decades.htm